re: SIAP - Interesting SB Nation SEC Division Proposal

In a debate between this fella and NYC I don't even have to read the subject matter before I pretty definitely decide that the rutard in this argument ain't NYC.

Just went back and read the subject matter, and as expected, I was right.

quote:

---

However, the BIG 12 just got the NCAA to change the rule to allow a 10-team league to not have to have divisions, so it may be something the SEC could force the NCAA to change.

---

So long as they play every team in the conference prior to championship game.

I think that one disclaimer is what keeps this from fruition

The SEC has arguably more weight than any conference in America. If Sankey and Co want this to happen, they'll get te rules changed. Again, this doesn't create a competitive advantage for the conference so there shouldn't be any outcries from the other conferences (then again, bob bowlsby and Jim Delaney would argue that the sky is purple if the SEC ever stated that it is in fact blue)

They got it all wrong. SC should play Vandy, Kent and Missouri.

I love this idea, but if they did this they'd have to address the propose Even odd divide for TN.

One year we'd play Bama, UF, LSU, UGA and Auburn the big 6.

The next year we'd only play Bama and UF from the big 6.

Switch out one of LSU, UGA or Auburn for Kentucky in that list and it'd be perfectly balanced each season.

quote:

---

Yea, not everyone's 3 are perfect


Alabama's pretty much is - Auburn, Tennessee, LSU

---

It's probably also the toughest. But it's no different than what we play every year. I like it.

Divisions really don't mean much
I mean if you are good enough you will find a way to win the SEC title

quote:

---

The Division I council adopted a proposal allowing FBS conferences with less than 12 members to hold conference title games between the top two teams in its standings, so long as the conference plays a full round-robin regular-season schedule.

---

So what's the point of having a championship game then? With a round-robin schedule, all teams would have already competed head-to-head and determined the best team on the field. I mean, if two teams finish with the same final overall conference record, then the team that won head-to-head in their regular season game should win the tie-breaker by default.

quote:

---

So what's the point of having a championship game then? With a round-robin schedule, all teams would have already competed head-to-head and determined the best team on the field. I mean, if two teams finish with the same final overall conference record, then the team that won head-to-head in their regular season game should win the tie-breaker by default.

---

Yep. The only point is to let the winner play another game against a Top 20 team and boost their resume. It totally contradicts all their "one champion" non-sense and it makes the system seems even more dumb.

I posted this before. This is the list of all SEC games that are recognized by the schools as being "named" rivalry games or season finales. Interestingly, there is actually a clean break between schools on the eastern side of the conference and the western side with no overlap in rivalry games EXCEPT all of South Carolina's named rivalry games are against western schools. I'm not suggesting that new divisions be split this way, as five of the Big Six schools end up located on the eastern side--I only list this to try to figure out each school's three rivals.

EASTERN TEAMS
AU-Bama (Iron Bowl)
AU-UG (Deep South's Oldest Rivalry)
Bama-UT (Third Saturday in October)
UF-UG (formerly the World's Largest Cocktail Party)
UK-UT (formerly the Battle for the Barrel)
UT-VU (unnamed season finale)
--
WESTERN TEAMS + SOUTH CAROLINA
A&M-Arky (Southwest Classic)
A&M-LSU (unnamed season finale)
A&M-USC (James Butler Bonham Trophy Game)
Arky-LSU (Battle for the Boot)
Arky-Mizzou (Battle Line Rivalry)
LSU-Ole Miss (Magnolia Bowl)
MSU-Ole Miss (Egg Bowl)
Mizzou-USC (Battle of Columbia)